§

Kal Kan Foods, Inc. v. Hacht Sales and Marketing, Ltd.

No. 91097609 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 1999)
Kal Kan Foods, Inc. v. Hacht Sales and Marketing, Ltd.

10 Cited authorities

  1. A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Const. Co.

    960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 660 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Holding that equitable estoppel is a cognizable defense against patent infringement

  2. Advanced Cardiovascular v. Scimed Life

    988 F.2d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 203 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in a Section 256 claim, laches cannot be decided at the pleading stage "based solely on presumptions"

  3. In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

    476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 191 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Reciting thirteen factors to be considered, referred to as "DuPont factors"

  4. National Cable Television v. Am. Cinema

    937 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 83 times
    Rejecting contention that “American Cinema Editors” did not have trademark rights in the acronym “ACE”

  5. Kenner Parker Toys v. Rose Art Industries

    963 F.2d 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that in light of the appearance, sound and meaning of the marks PLAY-DOH and FUNDOUGH, consumers may receive the "same commercial impression" from the marks

  6. J J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonalds' Corp.

    932 F.2d 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 45 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Ruling that McDonald's has established a family of marks in product names starting with the prefix "Me"

  7. Lincoln Logs Ltd. v. Lincoln Pre-Cut Log Homes, Inc.

    971 F.2d 732 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 26 times
    Stating that “a laches or estoppel defense in an opposition (or cancellation) proceeding may be based upon the Opposer's failure to object to an Applicant's registration of substantially the same mark ”

  8. King Candy Co. v. Eunice King's Kitchen

    496 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 8 times

    Patent Appeal No. 9245. June 6, 1974. J. Timothy Hobbs, Washington, D.C. (Mason, Fenwick Lawrence, Washington, D.C.), attorney of record, for appellant. William B. Mason, Arlington, Va. (Mason, Mason Albright, Arlington, Va.), attorney of record, for appellee. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges. MARKEY, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 178 USPQ 121 (1973)

  9. Polaroid Corporation v. Richard Mfg. Co.

    341 F.2d 150 (C.C.P.A. 1965)   Cited 5 times

    Patent Appeal No. 7248. February 11, 1965. Donald L. Brown, Cambridge, Mass., for appellant. Munson H. Lane, Conder C. Henry, Washington, D.C., for appellee. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges. ALMOND, Judge. Polaroid Corporation appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 137 USPQ 488, dismissing its opposition to application of Richard Manufacturing Company for registration of the mark "POLY-VUE" for filmstrip or slidefilm projectors.

  10. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 95,797 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint